DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 07/06/2026 (hereafter “the amendment”) has been accepted and entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stolz (US5566864A).
Regarding claim 1, Stolz teaches a screw top closure attachable to a container neck having cooperating screw-on features, the closure comprising (fig.1 shows the screw cap 10 attachable to a container neck and screwed on and off):
an closure body having an radial flange, defining a central aperture (fig.1 below shows the body with the top radial flange that has central aperture in the middle), and an annular skirt extending axially downward along an outer periphery of the radial flange (fig.1 below shows the skirt that extends down along the periphery of the flange as shown in figure 2);
a collapsible spout (fig.1 spout 20) having a first invertible cone section with a peripheral container plug seal sealingly engaging the radial flange (see annotated fig.1 below for the first invertible cone section with a plug seal sealing engaging the radial flange when in a condensed form as seen in fig.2), a second cone section defining a dispensing aperture along an inner facing (annotated fig.1 below shows the second cone with where when sealing disc 25 is pulled off the dispensing aperture opens), and at least two diametrically opposing overcap engagement protrusions positioned on an outer facing of the first and/or second cone section(s) (fig.1 below shows the cap 12 with threads 24 that are on the second cone section which is on the outer face) and wherein the first and second cone sections are contiguous so that, when the spout is collapsed, the second cone section nests within the first cone section so as to be at least partially coaxially nested within the annular skirt and, when the spout is extended, the second cone section extends axially above the first cone section (fig.1 below and fig.2 show the first and second cone sections are contiguous as when the spout is collapsed the second sits within the first and are at least partially coaxially within the skirt and the when extended the second cone extends above the first cone as seen below); and
an overcap attachable to the second cone section (fig.1 below shows cap 12 is attached to second cone), the overcap having a top panel with an integral pull ring (fig.1 below shows the cap 12 with top panel with handle member 29), a deformable skirt extending axially downward along an outer periphery of the top panel (see annotated fig.1 below for the skirt which is made from plastic and will deform to some extends that extends axially downward from the top panels outer periphery), and at least two diametrically opposing child resistant tabs extending axially downward from a terminal edge of the deformable skirt and wherein the diametrically opposing child resistant tabs are configured to engage one of the overcap engagement protrusions along a flat planar interface to selectively prevent removal of the overcap from the spout except when the deformable skirt is squeezed with sufficient force to disengage the child resistant and overcap protrusions (fig.1 below shows the projections 26’s that are diametrically opposing child resistant tabs extending axially downward from the terminal edge of the skirt proximate form the skirt and engaged the cap 12 to prevent removable of the cap 12 until it is acted on by a force from the user by inwardly pressing it and capable of engaging one of the overcap from the spout except when the skit is squeezed with sufficient force to disengage; it is noted due to “configured to” language applicant does not positively claim the limitation prior art simply has to be capable of performing such function).
Annotated fig.1 of Stolz
PNG
media_image1.png
564
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Stolz further teaches herein a removable panel initially seals the dispensing aperture (fig.1 shows the handle member 29 that initially seals the dispensing aperture).
Regarding claim 6, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Stolz further teaches wherein a plug seal is formed on an underside of the top panel so as to seal the dispensing aperture (fig.1 shows the seal 25 formed on the underside of the top panel).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over references as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Abraham (US20200317406A1).
Regarding claim 2, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Stolz does not teach wherein anti-back off lugs are formed along an inner facing of the annular skirt.
Abraham does teach wherein anti-back off lugs are formed along an inner facing of the annular skirt (fig.15a-15b show the closure 10 with anti-back off lungs pawls 18 formed on the inner ring 14). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the annular skirt disclosed by Stolz by adding the teaching of anti-backoff pawls on inner surface of ring as disclosed by Abraham in order to make the closure child resistance as well for a user to easily tell from a detached or missing ring that the container has already been opened creating a tamper resistance feature due to the anti-backoff pawls.
Regarding claim 3, the references as applied to claim 2 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Stolz as modified in claim 2 further teaches wherein the anti-back off lugs engage cooperating lugs on an outer circumference of a container neck (fig.15-15b show the pawls 18 engage the ratchet teeth 74).
Regarding claim 7, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Stolz further teaches a container (“This invention relates to a closure for a container, having a lower closure member and a screw cap in which the lower closure member is adapted to be connected to the container opening by a base member.” -col.1 lines 9-12). Stolz does not teach wherein the container having one or more lugs proximate to a neck which engage an inner facing of the annular skirt to prevent removal of the screw top closure after said screw top closure has been threadingly coupled to the neck.
Abraham does teach wherein the container having one or more lugs proximate to a neck which engage an inner facing of the annular skirt to prevent removal of the screw top closure after said screw top closure has been threadingly coupled to the neck (fig.15a-15b show the container with the ratchet teeth 74 that are on the neck of the container and they engage the inner face of the skirt 14 and prevent removal of the closure 10 after the closure has been threadingly coupled to the neck). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container disclosed by Stolz by adding the teaching of ratchet teeth on the neck of the container as disclosed by Abraham in order to make the closure child resistance as well for a user to easily tell from a detached or missing ring that the container has already been opened creating a tamper resistance feature due to the anti-backoff pawls since the skirt has the pawls that engage the teeth.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s new amendments did not change the scope of the claim because tabs extending axially downward from a terminal edge did not make any change since the terminal edge has not been define so it can be anywhere on the skirt. Also, “tabs are configured to” limitation made the claim broader since now the tabs does not have perform such function in the prior art and the prior art simply has to capable of performing it. Regarding the intended use of the claimed invention “configured to.....”, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). The 101 rejection is withdrawn in view of applicant’s arguments. Applicant’s arguments of claimed structure “only involves a pair of diametrically opposed features so that constant deformation is not required” however the functionality applicant is arguing is not even positively claimed in the claim. “only” pair of opposed features are not claimed “at least two diametrically opposing child resistant tabs” are i.e. just two features will read on the claim. Also, claims are read under BRI i.e. claims in light of the specifications not entire specifications being read into the claims so person skilled in the art would read it as broadly as possible. Applicant need to define the terminal edge in reference to something else and that’s where tabs extend down from because at the moment none of that is defined.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRINCE PAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7525. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9:30 AM - 7:30 PM (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANTHONY STASHICK can be reached at (571)272-4561. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PRINCE PAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights